Re: Can the McCanns be thinking straight?

by justagrannynow 1 06.05.10 7:02

[quote="Ruby"I think the look on her face is as, if not more, worrying than the make-up.
No way does she look like a child playing or having fun.[quote]

I agree with Ruby.

Photos can sometimes capture a certain look which, taken out of context, capturing a millisecond, convey a completely different emotion to what was being experienced at the time. This is what bothers me. The McCanns should have been able to recognise this and keep these away from public viewing. A bad choice IMO.

As for the makeup, I think it likely that Kate, or an adult has applied it. I do not believe a 3 year old could be so accurate with it, not only on the blue eyeshadow photo, but also the others where Madeleine is made up. Posters have said Kate wears little or no makeup, but I cannot agree with that. I think she applies it so skilfully that it appears to be natural. There is a photograph from the early days where Kate has white eyeliner applied between the lower lashes and the eyeball. Now that takes some doing and is not undertaken by someone who is not seriously into applying cosmetics.

by Laffin Assasin 06.05.10 7:06

Is anyone else seeing big grey areas and a mixed up layout of some posts on this thread ?

by **Jill Havern** 06.05.10 7:22

Yes, laffin, it started yesterday. Weird thing is some of us can see it and some can't...it seems to happen when you use the quote button.

by Rainbow 06.05.10 8:15

I thought it was just me so didnt say anything"!!!!!!

by **Tony Bennett** 06.05.10 8:26

[quote="Laffin Assasin"]Is anyone else seeing big grey areas...?[quote]
------

Highly appropriate and symbolic I would have thought in a forum about what really happened to Madeleine McCann.

by vaguely1 06.05.10 9:06

[quote="Ruby"]'I don't understand why anybody unrelated to Madeleine should have any say in which photographs of her are used in the video.'

- This is a forum, for people to have their say.

'If you make your own video you can choose the photographs'

- yes, but if you can't choose appropriate and tasteful photos, knowing they will be seen by millions of people worldwide, then you have left yourself open to public criticism.

I'm afraid I see the usual 'normalizing' going on here Vaguely...[quote]

normalizing of what?

by kangdang 06.05.10 9:13

[quote="Tony Bennett"][quote="Laffin Assasin"]Is anyone else seeing big grey areas...?[quote]
Highly appropriate and symbolic I would have thought in a forum about what really happened to Madeleine McCann.[quote]

..lol

by Ruby 06.05.10 9:17

Vaguely; like I need to say it, but I'll play along once more today, but it's really making Momma's ass drag...

Anything and everything, which, when challenging the McLiars or pointing out oddities, must be defended.

Come on, it's deeply entrenched by now, why not just admit it.

never mind

by vaguely1 06.05.10 9:47

[quote="Ruby"]Vaguely; like I need to say it, but I'll play along once more today, but it's really making Momma's ass drag...

Anything and everything, which, when challenging the McLiars or pointing out oddities, must be defended.

Come on, it's deeply entrenched by now, why not just admit it.

never mind

[quote]

Because what I see being defended is the right of a child to play dress up. The right of a child not to be called a tart.

by Ruby 06.05.10 9:48

Who exactly called her that, Vaguely?

I've obviously missed something major here...

by vaguely1 06.05.10 10:05

[quote="Ruby"]Who exactly called her that, Vaguely?

I've obviously missed something major here...[quote]

Well aside from all the crap that was written about her and her cousins, and the picking apart of photographs of everything she wore, and how her hair being crimped was a sign of something else and how she was too tall, too short, to fat, too thin, and how only tarts wear red...... there is now yet another one of the vile 'poems' that people feel compelled to write about her stating she is dressed as a tart, doing the rounds.

All these photos are tiny snaps of a human life. They are not the child herself. But the ripping to shreds of every image that has been seen of her is horrid. imho.

I don't understand why the image is staring at us from the front of this thread if people believe it to be so sinister. It's either an indication of something that is so horrific that just the reproduction of the photograph shouldn't be tolerated. Or it's a kid playing dress-up. If people truly in their hearts believe it's the former then why is the image being reproduced here?

by Ruby 06.05.10 10:31

Well, personally I haven't said any of those things; nor would I, ever.

I didn't even know she had cousins... and would agree they should be totally out of bounds.

TBH it sounds as though you need a break from all this for a while, sincerely.

by vaguely1 06.05.10 10:44

well thanks for that Ruby Can the McCanns be thinking straight? - Page 2 145161

by Ruby 06.05.10 10:56

Can the McCanns be thinking straight? - Page 2 QueenieKeepCalmCarryOnPoster-sfgirl

No problem.

by Pascal 06.05.10 11:03

I can't see the majority here picking the photograph apart to the same extent though V. Many have voiced their opinions and concerns about a picture of a missing three year old, who may or may not have been taken for paedophile activity, wearing a considerable amount of make up. I can't accept for one minute that she applied it herself. Have you seen what three year olds do with make up??

I don't think there is any connection to the ice cream shot Tony and quite frankly it's comments like those that ridicule the 'anti' argument and tar everyone with the same lavatory brush.

Again I don't think it's sinister for children to play dress up - but I do feel there is some other motive for releasing it. I'm still mulling over what that could be..

by **Jill Havern** 06.05.10 11:08

[quote="Pascal"]Have you seen what three year olds do with make up?? [quote]

Yes, my daughter used to plaster the walls with my make up and nail varnish. I can't remember her ever putting make up on her face at that age.

by baconbutty 06.05.10 11:36

Yes, my two used to draw pictures on the walls if they ever caught hold of a stray lipstick. Grrr! Can the McCanns be thinking straight? - Page 2 935245

The only times they ever came close to painting their faces was by smearing their lips with a licked red Smartie.

by justagrannynow 1 06.05.10 12:24

I feel a tad offended at this forum being ranted at for images, poems, whatever, which have appeared elsewhere.

The point I was trying to make in my post at 8.02 this morning was that I thought it was probably Kate who had applied the makeup to Madeleine, not just the blue eyeshadow one, but the others where Madeleine is made up. I was trying to offer my opinion, which is that Kate seems to be very image concious, in an understated way. The clothes are co-ordinated, the hair casually but extremely well cut and styled, and her own makeup is applied so skilfully as to appear barely visible. My opinion was to suggest that Madeleines appearance in these photographs says more about Kate than Madeleine, and perhaps should make the mothers of young daughters stop and think about their reasons for instilling the perceived importance of dress and cosmetics into the minds of the very young.
This opinion has nothing whatsoever to do with paedophilia or anything sinister, rather the necessity for all children to not only develop at their own pace, but also to learn for themselves what things are important to them in their own lives. That way they hopefully grow up as individuals without the subconscious baggage of someone else.

by **Tony Bennett** 06.05.10 12:40

[quote="Pascal"]I don't think there is any connection to the ice cream shot Tony and quite frankly it's comments like those that ridicule the 'anti' argument and tar everyone with the same lavatory brush.[quote]

Que?

What are you talking about?

I never mentioned the ice cream photograph.

Here's what I wrote:

QUOTE

But what of the choice of all three pictures together:

1. Make up photo
2. Lollipop photo
3. Photo of Madeleine on the floor looking back and up to camera.

Why did not Jon Corner, the McCanns and Clarence Mitchell select for that short video the following photos:

1. Madeleine opening a Christmas present
2. Madeleine riding her bicycle with stabilisers
3. Madeleine astride a pony
4. Madeleine playing in a park...etc.

UNQUOTE

The point I was making is that Jon Corner has deliberately chosen, shall way say, three very questionable photos of Madeleine when he had dozens of others to choose from.

You refer to "comments like those that ridicule the 'anti' argument".

Where are those comments, Pascal?

by Pascal 06.05.10 13:16

[quote="Tony Bennett"][quote="Pascal"]I don't think there is any connection to the ice cream shot Tony and quite frankly it's comments like those that ridicule the 'anti' argument and tar everyone with the same lavatory brush.[quote]

Que?

What are you talking about?

I never mentioned the ice cream photograph.

Here's what I wrote:

QUOTE

But what of the choice of all three pictures together:

My bad, I meant the lollipop photo.

1. Make up photo
2. Lollipop photo
3. Photo of Madeleine on the floor looking back and up to camera.

Why did not Jon Corner, the McCanns and Clarence Mitchell select for that short video the following photos:

1. Madeleine opening a Christmas present
2. Madeleine riding her bicycle with stabilisers
3. Madeleine astride a pony
4. Madeleine playing in a park...etc.

UNQUOTE

The point I was making is that Jon Corner has deliberately chosen, shall way say, three very questionable photos of Madeleine when he had dozens of others to choose from.

You refer to "comments like those that ridicule the 'anti' argument".

Where are those comments, Pascal?[quote]

by vaguely1 06.05.10 15:03

same thing I think Pascal.

by vaguely1 06.05.10 15:04

[quote="justagrannynow 1"]I feel a tad offended at this forum being ranted at for images, poems, whatever, which have appeared elsewhere.

The point I was trying to make in my post at 8.02 this morning was that I thought it was probably Kate who had applied the makeup to Madeleine, not just the blue eyeshadow one, but the others where Madeleine is made up. I was trying to offer my opinion, which is that Kate seems to be very image concious, in an understated way. The clothes are co-ordinated, the hair casually but extremely well cut and styled, and her own makeup is applied so skilfully as to appear barely visible. My opinion was to suggest that Madeleines appearance in these photographs says more about Kate than Madeleine, and perhaps should make the mothers of young daughters stop and think about their reasons for instilling the perceived importance of dress and cosmetics into the minds of the very young.
This opinion has nothing whatsoever to do with paedophilia or anything sinister, rather the necessity for all children to not only develop at their own pace, but also to learn for themselves what things are important to them in their own lives. That way they hopefully grow up as individuals without the subconscious baggage of someone else.[quote]

Where has the forum been ranted at? I've had a rant about the way people speak about children in photographs. Not ranting at this forum Gran. Last time I looked I was part of this forum - therefore ranting about it would make little sense. Can't disagree with your sentiments about not imposing adult baggage on to children.

by Autumn 06.05.10 22:18

For what its worth, I'm not convinced this photo is of Madeleine - someone said recently on another forum that anything put out by TM should be never be taken at face value, after 3 years I think many of us are all too familiar with the smoke and mirrors games they play. I don't know what they hope to achieve by releasing this photo, perhaps they are so confident that they will not be challenged about anything that they are starting to push the boundaries or, are could it be that they are seriously starting to lose the plot? What I do know is that it is imperative that Jim Gamble, as head of CEOP, speaks out and makes it clear that his organisation does not endorse the McCanns' decision to use this unsettling photo in their campaign - should he stay silent on this matter it is confirmation, imo, that his allegiance to the McCanns is as strong as ever.

Excellent letter, Tony and await Jim Gamble's response with interest Can the McCanns be thinking straight? - Page 2 759815